Get It Quietly

Football, bollocks and a bit of poker if you're lucky.

Location: Enfield, London, United Kingdom

Friday, January 28, 2005

A Bouquet

Just for a change, here's someone writing about poker who's actually quite good. She writes very well and almost invariably has something different to say, compared to what you hear from most of them. What she's doing on pokerpages is a mystery to me :-)


Anonymous Anonymous said...

From Peter B

Gotta admit that this woman knows what she is talking about -- indeed, she could give some senior lenders at banks a run for their money. I was at a lunch with a couple of these tossers earlier this week (L'Escargot, as I try to compete with Richard Brodie of Lion Tales...) and I asked what their attitude was to (a) the likelihood of a mezzanine investment going sour and (b) the volatility around that investment.

The basic response was that they wouldn't consider less than a 95% chance of getting their money back, no matter how big the potential jackpot if the company got it right (say, Party Poker, or Neteller). When I pointed out that if you made 100 such investments at 50% chance of doubling your money, it was better than 100 investments with a 95% chance of making a 10% profit, their eyes glazed over as if I was talking Catalan.

Anyway, as Amy writes, a lot of good decisions are more important than one excellent decision, particularly multi-tabling at limit. I still beat myself over the head a bit too much when I make a crass play because my mind is focused on the other table, and make a note to try not to do it again, but I'm getting better at not letting it bother me. I must be doing something right, though, because — without appearing to get a particularly lucky run of cards — my win rate at Party has increased dramatically over the past three months. I think that most of this is down to not convincing myself that my opponent might be "at it" (because I know that in the situation when he raises on the turn, I might be). I give up, and save myself a couple of big bets. OK, one time in 50 he might be at it, and another couple of times in 50 I might hit my two-outer, but giving up is usually the best EV.

Looks like our paths won't cross in Vegas. My holidays are put together in such a way this year that leaving on March 16th and coming back on April 3 still means that I have 19 days annual leave to exploit in December.

March 16 means I can catch the last day of cheap flights before the Easter price hike kicks in. I will also be there for the tail-end of a WSOP circuit at the Rio. On the downside, that week is also a big convention week (more than 100,000 at the wholesale construction event of the year, yawn...). No rooms to be had on the strip at any price, as far as I can see (well, the Boardwalk was quoting $600 a night, which gives you some idea of how bad things are). I managed to get four nights in, believe it or not, El Cortez, and even they were $50 a night.

The other two weeks are quite easy. I don't like getting poker rates (I prefer my freedom to roam) but I seem to spend five hours a day in the Flamingo anyway. I'll phone Harry tonight.

When does the Wynn open? Negreanu has got a great prop deal there, hasn't he?

I've enjoyed your posts this past week; you might see them as a bit aggressive, but to me they seemed like simple common sense. Vicky is as sweet as a nut, but I do somehow think that part of her love of poker is to do with the "romance" of near-danger associated with it. Nothing wrong with that, of course. It just wasn't what attracted me to poker. Perhaps I was one of the first of the "new breed" who liked the maths of the game rather than the romance. That's probably why Lederer is my hero.

BTW, if you trawl through the many photos of the Bellagio Diamond classic on LasVegasVegas site, there are two marvellous photos of Lederer. Never have I seen a man so utterly alone amidst a crowd of people. Yup, I thought, that's me, there, that is.

If you find out about anyone else who will be over there for the last two weeks of March, let me know.


5:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

agreed..a good piece

just one thought...could the simple explanation just be that Daniel feels that internet players might over play and over value what they're holding...i do

David Lloyd

9:07 PM  
Blogger Andy_Ward said...


Little to add because, as per usual, I am in complete agreement. We do seem to think in the same way !

I must admit it pains me a little to admit that someone writes well for an American website or magazine. Did you notice I can't even compliment someone without making four separate references to how bad everyone else is :-) I was so bored at work the other day I was reading Cardplayer online. Next time I'll just count my paper clips.

All my guide books except one have the El Cortez at the very bottom of their ordered list of hotels. Fortunately the latest one says it's been done up a bit so you should be fine. In any case, the worst hotel in Vegas is probably better than 80% of hotels over here. The Camel was asking me why I haven't booked the Bellagio for April but I just don't see the need. I also don't like paying poker rate - sitting down in a game you don't want to play just to qualify sounds like a false economy to me ! I've booked the Barbary Coast instead. The first time I was there I was a week in the Mirage and a week in the Orleans and I much preferred the latter, which most will find strange !


PS David, yes I thought the same, but at least Amy is thinking about it and coming up with something different.

9:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was talking to Scott Gray yesterday, he suggests the Gold Coast next door to the Rio at $40 per night.


2:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'When I pointed out that if you made 100 such investments at 50% chance of doubling your money, it was better than 100 investments with a 95% chance of making a 10% profit, their eyes glazed over as if I was talking Catalan.'

This logic often misleads when trying to arrive at single one-off decisions. Most investment decisions are not repeatable events, so it's not all about EV.

9:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

isn't the risky first option net 0 EV and the second + 4.5% - i.e. the lower risk option has higher EV? An oversight perhaps, but I take your point.

2:39 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home